New Bill Could Limit Stream Access

[Smallieguy87]

Great work guys...I guarantee they ate talking now if enough people are contacting them on this....social media windstorm there buA

All in a days work. we will dig in and give em some hell!

[bs1827]

Still haven't heard back from my reps. I've seen several things on social media lately though. People finally seem to be catching up with it.

[Smallieguy87]

Still haven't heard back from my reps. I've seen several things on social media lately though. People finally seem to be catching up with it.

I know a lot of people have been spreading awareness of the bill through facebook, including me. I actually spoke with a few people i work with who are also putting in a calls, emails, etc. I was hoping we could help get word out there ASAP. Even though they plan to amend a few portions of the bill the general consensus is the meat and potatoes of it is not going to change. I suspect they will try and keep as confusing as possible while only changing the small details and hope they can pass it by the sub committee.

[Al Agnew]

Guys, I think a lot of you are not yet conversant with the laws of stream access in MO. Here's the deal...the bill throws around the word "navigable" a bunch of times, and I'm not sure exactly what they mean by it, but the Missouri float streams are NOT navigable by law. The ONLY publicly navigable streams are the Missouri, Mississippi, and the lower ends of a few of the other largest streams. The change of making the landowner on "navigable" streams own down to the low water mark and not the high water mark is the most obvious change that this bill would do, since at this point the landowner owns to the high water mark. But this is only on those few big rivers. On the Ozark streams, the landowner ALREADY owns the gravel bars and the bed of the river, and it is ONLY because of court cases, most notably Elder v Delcour, that the public has the right to use these streams AND the gravel bars even though the bars and bottom are owned by the landowners. Think of it like a public sidewalk...the landowner owns the sidewalk but the public can walk on it.

So I'm far from sure that the bill would change this. However, because of the obscure wording and the lack of any notation of the already established public right to use these streams, it very could be a clumbsy or sneaky way of removing that right, so it's definitely worrisome.

There's no doubt whatsoever, however, that the bill removes quite a bit of the protection from pollution and other destructive practices that the streams have now. For that reason alone it's a bad bill. And if it changes the definitions of "navigable", it is a VERY bad bill.

[Al Agnew]

Also...I got it "from the grapevine" from a source I won't name (if he wants to name himself he can) that Ross is being backed and funded by the guy that owns the huge amount of land on the upper Osage Fork, and this is his way of making that river his own private stream even more than it is now.

I suspect that the Osage Fork has never had a court decide that it's a floatable stream, unlike some other streams in MO where there have been landowner conflicts, like Indian Creek in Franklin County, where a big landowner has been trying to keep people off it for years, even though Franklin County courts have ruled it to fall under Elder v Delcour.

[fishinwrench]

Also...I got it "from the grapevine" from a source I won't name (if he wants to name himself he can) that Ross is being backed and funded by the guy that owns the huge amount of land on the upper Osage Fork, and this is his way of making that river his own private stream even more than it is now.

I suspect that the Osage Fork has never had a court decide that it's a floatable stream, unlike some other streams in MO where there have been landowner conflicts, like Indian Creek in Franklin County, where a big landowner has been trying to keep people off it for years, even though Franklin County courts have ruled it to fall under Elder v Delcour.

Wow. That is an eyebrow raiser.

I've always wondered why it was so important to them to keep everybody off that stretch since none of them ever set a foot or a paddle in it.

If they don't fish or float....then why do they care?

[Greasy B]

"Then why do they care?"

It's the same mentality the ranchers in Wyoming have. I have seen owners or ranch hands piss away hours following two dudes in rafts down the river, phone in one hand camera in the other just waiting for us to get out to take a pee or stretch. You would think they would have something better to do, they don't. They look at us like an invading force coming to steal their cow pies.

The militarized section of the Osage fork has been on my long list on destinations. Mr, Empire Ranch may think he owns the river but he owns it no more than he owns the air above is little kingdom.

[Smalliebigs]

Also...I got it "from the grapevine" from a source I won't name (if he wants to name himself he can) that Ross is being backed and funded by the guy that owns the huge amount of land on the upper Osage Fork, and this is his way of making that river his own private stream even more than it is now.

I suspect that the Osage Fork has never had a court decide that it's a floatable stream, unlike some other streams in MO where there have been landowner conflicts, like Indian Creek in Franklin County, where a big landowner has been trying to keep people off it for years, even though Franklin County courts have ruled it to fall under Elder v Delcour.

HA.....I once had the privilege of going with a forum member who was named after a fishing insect. He took me to a mystical spring hole on the upper Osage Fork. It was very hush hush and the fishing was pretty good but, we were given the riot act from two different people on that stretch. The first dude told us we were trespassing while floating down the river and I found that to be discouraging and the guy who took me there said it might go down like that as he had been kicked out of there before. I let that one go but, we came down to a low water bridge and another freak came out and started getting stupid and I had heard enough and got into a big argument with this cat which ended with me telling him to go piss up a rope and go back to where ever he came from. I don't think the forum member named after a fishing insect cared for how I engaged the dude trying to force us off the river as he would barely talk to me when were driving back to Lebanon. I almost came to blows with the second freak on that river so I see where this may be true Al....they don't want you to float the upper Osage Fork.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Guys, I think a lot of you are not yet conversant with the laws of stream access in MO. Here's the deal...the bill throws around the word "navigable" a bunch of times, and I'm not sure exactly what they mean by it, but the Missouri float streams are NOT navigable by law. The ONLY publicly navigable streams are the Missouri, Mississippi, and the lower ends of a few of the other largest streams. The change of making the landowner on "navigable" streams own down to the low water mark and not the high water mark is the most obvious change that this bill would do, since at this point the landowner owns to the high water mark. But this is only on those few big rivers. On the Ozark streams, the landowner ALREADY owns the gravel bars and the bed of the river, and it is ONLY because of court cases, most notably Elder v Delcour, that the public has the right to use these streams AND the gravel bars even though the bars and bottom are owned by the landowners. Think of it like a public sidewalk...the landowner owns the sidewalk but the public can walk on it.

So I'm far from sure that the bill would change this. However, because of the obscure wording and the lack of any notation of the already established public right to use these streams, it very could be a clumbsy or sneaky way of removing that right, so it's definitely worrisome.

There's no doubt whatsoever, however, that the bill removes quite a bit of the protection from pollution and other destructive practices that the streams have now. For that reason alone it's a bad bill. And if it changes the definitions of "navigable", it is a VERY bad bill.

I stated that point exactly in the interview.

I also explained the Supreme Court case and the high water and low water mark and how it will change this drastically.

[Smallieguy87]

HA.....I once had the privilege of going with a forum member who was named after a fishing insect. He took me to a mystical spring hole on the upper Osage Fork. It was very hush hush and the fishing was pretty good but, we were given the riot act from two different people on that stretch. The first dude told we were trespassing while floating down the river and I found that to be discouraging and the guy who took me there said it might go down like that as he had been kicked out of there before. I let that one go but, we came down to a low water bridge and another freak came out and started getting stupid and I had heard enough and got into a big argument with this cat which ended with me telling him to go piss up a rope and go back to where ever he came from. I don't think the forum member named after a fishing insect cared for how I engaged the dude trying to force us off the river as he would barely talk to me when were driving back to Lebanon. I almost came to blows with the second freak on that river so I see where this may be true Al....they don't want you to float the upper Osage Fork.

So what you're saying smalliebigs is that you want me to help you pack up the tandem and we go on a little float? lol